Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/11/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] A photo which costs more than a Cindy Sherman!
From: rcmphoto at yahoo.com (R. Clayton McKee)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 07:45:02 -0800 (PST)
References: <000801cca0dd$601fdfe0$205f9fa0$@chiaroscuro.co.nz> <82016AC7-7887-432C-B161-417FC785E445@gmail.com> <4EBDDBEE.8080105@cox.net> <19CFE570-10CF-43BA-86AA-E4C74B3C5D64@ameritech.net> <4486DCE069594B16B7722E93DDC2CB2F@syneticfeba505> <1321076990.36941.YahooMailNeo@web39309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <549FA0FE-29E0-4075-8A51-C327659E5D74@mac.com>

> From: George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com>
> Andreas Gursky's monumentally huge and extremely detailed photographs hold 
> a 
> very serious place in the history of photography; and photography's place 
> within the world of two dimensional visual art. Whether you like his work 
> or not 
> remains obviously subjective. Though I'd guess that if you stood before 
> his 
> 8' to 20' foot prints you may feel differently. A 300 ppi jpg does not 
> begin to suggest the experience of standing before the work. Nor does it 
> begin 
> help understand? the very intentional use and need for scale; or the body 
> of 
> work the man has produced with focused attention over decades.


On the strength of your comments, I looked up Gursky...

Gursky gets full points for having been there and done the piece, but mostly 
for mad marketing skillz.

(I actually HAVE seen the 99c Store piece, or a life-size version of it .? 
My first reaction, as with the price tag on this one, was "Damn, that's 
Big."?? My second reaction, also as with this one, was "WHY?!?"? I 
subsequently used that photograph along with several Mark Rothko 
pieces to explain to a small group of artist friends why I refuse to accept 
the label 
'artist' for myself.? The exact phrase was "THIS is why I'll deck you 
if you ever call me an artist in public again.")

Gursky may well be significant within the art world.? I'll let the artists 
and the art critics, of which I'm NOT one, decide that.? I'm exposed to huge 
amounts of that world - and I long ago realized that I'm not in the target 
marketGurskyg? demographic for it.? Oddly enough there DOES appear to be 
one.? (There's also a huge paying audience for Survivor, all kinds of 
sports, and politicians.?? There are even insane people who spend ridiculous 
amounts of money acquiring cameras and rebuilding old race cars, none of 
which have much redeeming value outside their niches either.)

Myself,? I'll stand by what I said, with one modification:? Some technicians 
were, I suspect, paid handsomely to actually create the physical piece, and 
that's a good thing for them.? Beyond that....



R. Clayton McKee
PhotoJournalist
from somewhere just south of somewhere else...


In reply to: Message from john at chiaroscuro.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] (OT) A photo which costs more than a Cindy Sherman!)
Message from rgacpa at gmail.com (Bob Adler) ([Leica] (OT) A photo which costs more than a Cindy Sherman!)
Message from kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney) ([Leica] (OT) A photo which costs more than a Cindy Sherman!)
Message from disfromage at ameritech.net (Richard Wasserman) ([Leica] (OT) A photo which costs more than a Cindy Sherman!)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (tedgrant at shaw.ca) ([Leica] A photo which costs more than a Cindy Sherman!)
Message from rcmphoto at yahoo.com (R. Clayton McKee) ([Leica] A photo which costs more than a Cindy Sherman!)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] A photo which costs more than a Cindy Sherman!)